ADDRESS 
BEFORE TUB 
pjiliMjjjmt Count)] Jtlcimal J$0cietg, 
Delivered January 23, 1867, 
AGREEABLY TO A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
BY 
WM. MAYBURRY, M.D., 
AT THE CLOSE OF HIS OFFICIAL TERM AS PRESIDENT. 
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. 
PHILADELPHIA: 
COLLINS, PRINTER, ?05 JAYNE STREET. 
1867. ADDRESS 
BEFORE THE 
pl)il;iiuipj)i;t Counts JfJchkal ftumtg, 
Delivered January 23, 1867, 
AGREEABLY TO A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, 
BY 
WM. MAYBURRY, M.D., 
AT THE CLOSE OF HIS OFFICIAL TERM AS PRESIDENT. 
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE SOCIETY. 
PHILADELPHIA: 
COLLINS, PRINTER, 105 JAYNE STREET. 
1867. ADDRESS. 
GENTLEMEN, MEMBERS OF THE 
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY: 
The period for which I was elected your presiding officer is 
about expiring. The constitution provides that no one shall en- 
joy this distinguished honor two consecutive years. The same 
instrument also declares that at the close of his term of office the 
retiring President shall deliver an address. In obedience to this 
provision I now appear before you. I am fully sensible, however, 
that in the present instance, there would be more honor in the 
breach than in the observance of this requirement. 
It requires no small degree of assurance, in one unaccustomed 
to such efforts, to address members of the medical profession of 
this great metropolis, renowned in the early annals of our country 
not only for the establishment of the first medical school on the 
American continent, but also for the profound erudition, the dis- 
interested benevolence, and the honorable and dignified bearing 
of its medical men—a reputation which, I am proud to say, dur- 
ing the long series of years which gave birth to many new 
discoveries in science as well as invaluable improvements in 
medicine, has not been forfeited. I come before you with much 
diffidence, and in utter distrust of my ability to interest, much 
less instruct you. But it has been the uniform rule and prac- 
tice of my life to endeavor, to the best of my humble ability, to 
discharge at least every accepted obligation of whatever nature. 
If I fail on the present occasion to contribute anything valuable 
to the general fund, I claim what your generosity will kindly 
accord—credit for the will, even though other faculties of the 
mind refuse to respond and obey it. 
I desire, in this connection, to express my appreciation of the 4 
very great honor done me in making me by your votes the suc- 
cessor in the presidential chair of such a galaxy of distinguished 
gentlemen as have preceded me—as a Jackson, a Bell, a Condie, 
a Jewell, a Gross, a Carson, a Stilld, and others equally accom- 
plished and esteemed—men who have contributed so largely to 
the medical literature of this country, and of whom many have 
won a world-wide reputation for their scientific knowledge, their 
practical skill, and extensive literary and professional attainments. 
If my election was intended as a tribute to my known devotion 
to the Society from its earliest history, my exertion for the ad- 
vancement of all its interests, and my feeble efforts in the great 
work of medical organization which has occupied the ablest minds 
of the profession during nearly a quarter of a century, I accept 
the “mild impeachment,” and beg to assure you that it will remain 
in my mind as a pleasant and bright remembrance as long as 
memory itself shall endure. 
In looking around for a suitable topic upon which to hazard 
a few crude thoughts, I have met with no little embarrassment, 
my distinguished predecessors, and those who have been called 
to preside over kindred societies, having exhausted the list from 
which to select. 
At one time it was my intention to attempt a general historical 
sketch of medical organization from the earliest times to the 
present, and I had with that view collected a considerable amount 
of material. But I soon discovered that, as it dates far back into 
antiquity, this would be a theme so extensive that volumes might 
be written without exhausting it. I next proposed to take a 
glimpse of its history in this country, pointing chiefly to its social, 
ethical, and scientific results, and speak more particularly of the 
rise, progress, present condition, and probable future of the Phil- 
adelphia County Medical Society. Even this, sketch it briefly as 
I might, could not be accomplished within the limits at my com- 
mand. 
The earliest suggestion, so far as my knowledge extends, of 
the institution of medical societies in America, is contained in a 
discourse delivered by John Morgan, M.D., the great pioneer of 
medical education in this country, at a public commencement held 
in the College of Philadelphia, May 30. 1765. In that address, 
in which he discusses the expediency of establishing a medical 5 
school in Philadelphia, occurs the following almost prophetic 
passage:— 
“Perhaps this medical institution, the first of its kind in 
America, though small in its beginning, may receive a constant 
accession of strength, and annually exert new vigor. It may 
collect a number of young persons of more than ordinary abilities, 
and so improve their knowledge as to spread its reputation to 
distant parts. By sending those abroad duly qualified, or by 
exciting an emulation among men of parts and literature, it may 
give birth to other useful institutions of a similar nature, or occa- 
sional rise by its example, to numerous societies of different 
kinds calculated to spread the light of knowledge through the 
whole American continent wherever inhabited.” 
Almost simultaneously with the promulgation of these views, 
the subject of medical organization was earnestly discussed by 
the medical faculty of the then province of New Jersey. On the 
17th day of June, 1766, appeared, in the columns of the Mercury, 
a paper published in the city of New York, a call for a meeting 
to be held on the 20th day of July ensuing, at New Brunswick, 
to which every gentleman of the profession in the province, favor- 
able to the formation of a society “for their mutual improvement, 
the advancement of the profession, the promotion of the public 
good, and the cultivation of the utmost harmony and friendship,” 
was invited.* Whether this movement originated in consequence 
of the address of Dr. Morgan and the movement in Philadelphia, 
history does not inform us. It is presumed, however, to have 
been independent; for it is certain that the subject “engaged the 
attention of some gentlemen of the profession in the province of 
New Jersey, and was occasionally the topic of conversation,” for 
several years prior to the New Brunswick meeting.! It is also 
certain that the first and oldest permanently organized medical 
society on this continent is the Medical Society of New Jersey. 
Its centennial anniversary was celebrated with appropriate cere- 
monies on the 23d day of January last, in the city of New Bruns- 
wick, where the society was first established. Robert McKean 
appears to have been the first President. He and thirteen asso- 
* Historical Narrative of the Medical Society of New Jersey, by Dr. William 
Pierson, 
f Ibid. 6 
ciates, whose names are given in the historical narrative read by 
direction of the society at its centennial meeting, were its founders. 
The names of these worthies—alike with those of Dr. William 
Shippen and Dr. John Morgan, with whom originated the idea of 
making the medical education of the American physician inde- 
pendent of foreign universities—ought to be held in perpetual 
remembrance. No better subject could be suggested for the pen 
of the medical biographer than to place on permanent record the 
achievements, in medicine, in literature, in science, and in philan- 
thropy, of these founders of medical organization in our neigh- 
boring State. Should not the work be now undertaken, while yet 
the materials for such a record may be collected ? Dr. McKean* 
was a brother of Thomas McKean, Governor of Pennsylvania. 
As was not unfrequently the case in the early settlement of our 
country, he combined the practice of physic with the offices of 
the holy ministry. In the annals of New Jersey, honorable men- 
tion is made of him both as a divine and physician.f 
The next society, in chronological order, is the Massachusetts 
Medical Society, which was incorporated October 30, 1781, and 
organized in the following June. Edward Holyoke, of Salem, 
was elected the first Dy the act of incorporation, 
power and authority were conferred upon the President and 
Fellows to examine and license all candidates for the practice of 
physic and surgery who might apply. The Massachusetts Medi- 
cal Society published its first volume of Transactions§ in 1790, 
and, I believe, have continued their publication, annually, to the 
present day. 
* The following inscription is from a monument in the graveyard of St. Peter’s 
Church at Perth Amboy :— 
“In memory of the Rev. Robert McKean, A. M., practitioner of physic, &c., 
and missionary, from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts, to the city of Perth Amboy, who was born July 13, 1732, N. S., and died 
October 17, 1767. An unshaken friend, an agreeable companion, a rational 
divine, a skilful physician, and, in every relation of life, a truly benevolent and 
honest man. Fraternal love has erected this monument.”—Barber's and Howe's 
Historical Collections of New Jersey, 1844. 
f Whitehead’s Contributions to the Early History of Perth Amboy, 1856, 
p. 291, etc. 
t Thatcher’s Medical Biography. 
§ Medical Papers and Communications to the Massachusetts Medical Society, 
1790, page x. 7 
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia was established on 
January 2, 1787, and incorporated two years later. Dr. John 
Redman was elected its first President. One of its primary ob- 
jects,* although not expressed in the charter, seems to have been 
the formation of a Pharmacopoeia that should be authoritative 
throughout the country. This desideratum, which was especially 
felt in the early period of American medicine, was happily sup- 
plied, in 1820, by the framing and adopting of the Pharmaoopoeia 
of the United States. In the preparation of that work, delegates 
from the College of Physicians took a conspicuous part, and 
every page of the several decennial editions of that truly national 
work bears the unmistakable impress o£ the master-spirits of 
that body. 
The history of the College from its early infancy, through 
many years of eminence and prosperity, to the building and occu- 
pancy of this magnificent hall, in which, since March 11, 1863, 
the Philadelphia County Medical Society has been privileged to 
hold its meetings, has been graphically sketched by our fellow- 
member, Dr. Wilson Jewell,f in his address delivered before 
the Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania, at its 15th 
annual session, held on the 8th day of June, 1864, for the first 
time in this building. 
The so called old Philadelphia Medical Society was incorpo- 
rated June 2,1792. Its object, as defined in the act of incorpora- 
tion, was “the mutual improvement of its members in the science 
of medicine and the promoting of medical knowledge.” It was 
composed of two classes of members, Honorary or Senior, and 
Junior, the latter being under-graduates in medicine connected 
with the University of Pennsylvania. In virtue of their mem- 
bership, and a faithful performance of their duties as members, 
or in case of their receiving the degree of Doctor of Medicine, 
the Junior members became Honorary members. Weekly meet- 
ings were held from the first Saturday of November until the 
first Saturday of February, inclusive. 
* In an address delivered before the College of Physicians, 1787, by Dr. Ben- 
jamin Rush, occurs the following language: “ By assuming the name of a College, 
we may give a sanction to an American Dispensatory, for I take it for granted 
this will be one of the first objects of our attention.” 
f Transactions of Med. Soc. of the State of Pennsylvania, for 1864, p. 382 et 
seq. 8 
This Society “continued in uninterrupted activity” until 1845, 
when its regular sessions were suspended. It “maintained a 
long career of dignity and efficiency,” and “ upon the roll of its 
members are to be found almost all the honored names of the 
early days of American medicine.”* Dr. Benjamin Rush (?) was 
probably the first President. 
Its proceedings were briefly announced in the medical journals 
of the day, and the annual oration, pronounced by an Honorary 
member, by appointment, was usually published in pamphlet 
form. 
On the title-page of an Inaugural Dissertation (on the “ Chemi- 
cal and Medical Properties of the Persimmon Tree, and the Analy- 
sis of Astringent Vegetables”), submitted by James Woodhouse, 
A. M., to the Provost, Trustees, and Medical Professors of the 
University of Pennsylvania, for the degree of Doctor of Medicine 
in 1792, the author claims to be Honorary member of the Phila- 
delphia and the American Medical Societies. In another Inaugu 
ral Dissertation, by Francis Bowes, presented in 1790, the author 
also claims to be Senior member of the American Medical Society. 
Of this latter body, we believe, no distinct account is extant. 
From the language of Dr. John Redman Coxe, in an addressf 
delivered before the Philadelphia Medical Society, February 7th, 
1800, it is evident that the American became merged into the 
former. Speaking of the Philadelphia Medical Society, Dr. Coxe 
remarks, that “ by its junction with the American Medical Society, 
it has added the respectability of that institution to the youthful 
vigor which animated itself.” It is, hence, inferred that the 
American must have been the older of the two societies. 
In 1798 “The Medical Academy of Philadelphia” was estab- 
lished, whose “ more particular object was to inquire into, and 
elucidate the history and nature of pestilential disease.”:]: It was 
the design to publish the result of its labors periodically. It 
obtained a charter of incorporation in the year 1800; and carried 
out its design by frequently making able reports on matters per- 
taining to health. 
The Connecticut Medical Society, by priority of its formation, 
* Transactions of the Med. Soc. of the State of Pennsylvania for 1858, p. 14. 
f Page 28. 
t Medical Repository, Hexade I. vol. i. p. 385. 9 
ought previously to have been noticed. To preserve, however, 
the continuity of the old medical institutions of our own metropo- 
lis, of some of which there is but little known at the present day, 
its consideration was postponed until now. It appears to have 
been founded in 1792, nearly three-quarters of a century ago. 
Its seventy fourth* annual convention was held at New Haven, 
on May the 23d and 24th of the past year (1866). The Medical 
Society of the County of New Haven was established at an earlier 
period. In 1788 it published “ Cases and Observations,” a work 
which is said to have been honorably referred to by trans Atlan- 
tic authors.f 
The New Hampshire Medical Society, which we believe is still 
in active operation, was incorporated in the year 1791. 
The Middlesex Medical Society, in the State of Massachusetts, 
was organized anterior to July, 1791. It was composed of prac- 
titioners of medicine residing in the county of Middlesex, which 
embraced the towns of Cambridge, Charleston, Medford, Water- 
town, and Concord. At the latter place, at a meeting of the So- 
ciety held July 6th, 1791, B. Waterhouse, M. D., then the Profes- 
sor of the Theory and Practice of Physic in the University of 
Cambridge, delivered a discourse on the “Kise, Progress, and 
Present State of Medicine.” One of the articles of association is 
illustrative of the high-toned ethical sentiment that characterized 
the practitioners of the healing art at that early period of our his- 
tory ; it is as follows :— 
“ And it shall be'the duty of each member to promote the inter- 
est of this Association, to advance its honor and its reputation- 
lie shall vindicate and support the character of each associate as 
far as justice and propriety will admit, ever esteeming it dishonor- 
able to advance his own reputation on the ruin of another.” 
What a contrast does this noble sentiment present to the conduct 
of many physicians of eminence and influence of our own day, 
who, by various innuendoes, if not by direct means, especially if 
the patient is wealthy or influential, do not scruple to impair the 
patient’s confidence in his regular medical attendant, and to in- 
gratiate themselves into his good graces! It was the custom of 
* Medical Record, vol. i. p. 407. 
t Thatcher’s Med. Biography. 10 
this Society to interrogate, through its President, each member 
at the opening of every meeting on matters of general professional 
interest met with in his readings during the interim; on visita- 
tions of epidemics in the circle of his practice; on resuscitation in 
cases of asphyxia, and the method pursued; on difficulties met 
with in the theory and practice of physic needing elucidation; 
on his knowledge of young beginners in the healing art deserving 
encouragement; on “any weighty affair in hand” in which ad- 
vice might be serviceable; and on his knowledge of any service 
that the Society might render “ mankind, their country, or them- 
selves.”* 
The Medical Society of South Carolina was incorporated in 
1794. 
The Medical and Chirurgical Society of the State of Maryland 
was incorporated January 20th, 1799.f 
The North Carolina Medical Society was instituted by a con- 
vention of the Faculty of that State on Monday, 16th day of 
April, 1800, at Raleigh.:}: That Society must have suspended 
operations at an early day. In 1848(?), when the present Medi- 
cal Society of North Carolina was organized, the fact of the exist- 
ence of the earlier institution seems to have been almost forgotten. 
The New York County Medical Society, which numbers at the 
present time a membership embracing a very great proportion of 
the talent, respectability, skill, learning, and activity of the pro- 
fession in the city of New York, was organized in 1805. It re- 
ceived its act of incorporation July 1st, 1806, and originated from 
the New York Medical Society, established in 1788, which was the 
first medical organization in the State.§ The County Society 
celebrated its sixty-first anniversary on the 12th day of Novem- 
ber last.|| 
The Medical Society of the State of New York was organized 
in the year 1807. Its first President was Dr. Wm, McClelland. 
The first part of the first volume of the transactions of the Society 
was published in 1832. During the first twenty-five years of its 
* Benjamin Waterhouse's Address, 1791. 
f Transactions of the Medical Society of the State of New York. 
J Medical Repository, vol. iv. p. 202. 
§ Manual prepared for the meeting of American Medical Association in 1864. 
II Medical Record. 11 
existence the mere proceedings of its meetings, together with the 
Presidents’ annual addresses, were published in pamphlet form. 
Since then the Transactions have appeared annually, and contain 
much valuable information. 
The Rhode Island State Medical Society was incorporated in 
18f2. 
The Medical Society of the District of Columbia was incorpo- 
rated, by an act of Congress, February 16th, 1819* 
The Medical Society of Maine was incorporated in 1821. By 
its act of incorporation it is required to choose censors for exa- 
mining and licensing students in medicine. 
An act was passed, Feb. 20th, 1824, by the Legislature of 
Ohio, providing for the incorporation of medical societies for 
the purpose of regulating the practice of physic and surgery in 
that State. 
The Medical Society of Virginia was organized about the year 
1825. 
The Medical Society of the State of Mississippi was incorpo- 
rated February 4th, 1829.f 
The State Medical Society of Indiana was incorporated ante- 
rior to 1830. 
The Medical Society of Tennessee was incorporated about the 
year 1829. 
In many of the States where incorporated medical societies 
exist, the practice of medicine is regulated by law. New York 
is entitled to the honor of having adopted the first effectual mea- 
sure in this direction. In 1760 its Colonial General Assembly 
ordained that “ no person whatever should practise as a physician 
or surgeon, in the city of New York, before he shall have been 
examined in physic or surgery, and approved of, and admitted 
by one of his Majesty’s Council, the judges of the Supreme Court, 
the King’s Attorney-General, and the Mayor of the city of New 
York, for the time being, or by any three or more of them, tak- 
ing to their assistance for such examinations such proper person 
or persons as they in their discretion shall think fit.”:}: In 1772 
a similar law was enacted in New Jersey. This is all that ap- 
* Transactions of the Medical Society of New York, 
f Trans, of the Med. Soc. of the State of N. Y.,vol. p. 203. 
t Sketch of the state of American Medicine before the Revolution, by Dr. J. 
B. Beck. 12 
pears to have been done previous to the Revolution. Subse- 
quently, as we have seen, a few State societies were formed. 
Nearly all the incorporated State societies had conferred upon 
them the right to examine and license medical students. In many 
States no one could legally practise medicine and collect fees 
without being licensed by the State or District Society. Since 
the multiplication, however, of irregular practitioners of various 
sorts, the laws, regulating the practice of medicine in many States, 
have been repealed, and the protection, which both the public 
and the profession at one time enjoyed, has been almost entirely 
withdrawn. 
Passing by the establishment of many local societies in differ- 
ent sections of the country, we now reach a period when new 
interest was awakened in regard to medical education, and to the 
complete organization of the profession in the United States. 
On the 5th day of January, 1835, in pursuance of a circular 
letter, addressed to '‘All scientific practitioners of medicine and 
surgery in the State of Ohio,” a convention of physicians was 
held in the city of Columbus, “with the grand design of organ- 
izing for practical utility the whole scientific medical power of 
the State.”* Among other subjects, “the regulation of profes- 
sional etiquette, the construction of independent medical socie- 
ties, and the improvement of the state of medical education,” 
claimed the attention of that Convention. It adjourned to meet 
at the same place in January, 1838, and subsequently held a 
third session in the city of Cleveland on the 14th and 15th days 
of May, 1839. At the annual meeting held at Columbus, among 
other resolutions, relating to medical instruction in the United 
States, the following was adopted:— 
“Resolved, That if the various schools of the Union were to 
send representatives to a meeting at some central point, to con- 
fer together, many of their existing defects, by a simultaneous, 
co-operative effort, might be successfully remedied, and that we 
respectfully recommend such a convention to be held. Till when 
it would not be practicable, nor should it be expected, that any 
single institution will attempt the reforms which are here pro- 
posed.”*!' 
Almost simultaneously with the publication of the proceedings 
* The American Journal of the Med. Sciences, vol. xvi. p. 364. 
f The American Journal of the Medical Sciences for 1838, vol. xxii. p. 526. 13 
of this Convention, appeared those of New York, Connecticut 
and Tennessee*—almost extreme points of the then Union, evinc- 
ing that the profession was beginning to labor with increased zeal 
for the advancment of medical science. At the annual meeting 
of the New Hampshire Medical Society, held in June, 1838, it 
was voted, that “This Society recommend an Annual Conven- 
tion, to consist of delegates from the various medical schools and 
societies in the Union; that the first conyention be proposed to 
be holden A. D. 1840; and that the Secretary send a notice of 
this vote to the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, and the 
American Journal of the Medical Sciences of Philadelphia.”f 
At the annual session of the Medical Society of the State of 
New York, held in February, 1839, at Albany, Dr. John M’Call, 
of Utica, introduced the following preamble and resolution:—^ 
“Whereas, A national medical convention would advance, 
in the apprehension of this Society, the cause of the medical pro- 
fession throughout our land, in thus affording an interchange of 
views and sentiments on the most interesting of all subjects, that 
involving men’s health and the means of securing and recovering 
the same; 
Resolved, That, in our opinion, such convention is deemed ad- 
visable and important; and we would hence recommend that it 
be held in the year 1840, on the first Tuesday in May of that 
year, in the city of Philadelphia, and that it consist of three 
delegates from each State medical society, and one from each 
regularly constituted medical school in the United States; and 
that the President and Secretary of this Society be, and they are 
hereby instructed and required to transmit, as soon as may be, a 
circular to that effect to each State medical society, and medical 
school in said United States.” 
These are the first movements, of which we have any record, 
suggesting a convention of delegates, not only from all the regu- 
larly organized medical colleges, but also from the regularly 
organized medical societies throughout the whole country. How 
far the conventional proceedings in Ohio, already referred to, 
* American Journal of the Medical Sciences, vol. xxiv. p. 429. 
t Ibid., vol. xxiii. p. 264. 
t Transactions of the Medical Society of the State of New York, for 1839— 
Appendix, p. 36 et seq. 14 
which had then been before the profession for several years, 
influenced the action in New Hampshire, and the latter that in 
New York, is not known. Nothing, however, of importance grew 
out of these movements, perhaps, because there were but few 
Slate societies in existence at the time, and the colleges, who 
were duly addressed on the subject by a committee appointed for 
the purpose, did not seem disposed to act, and many did not even 
respond to the call* . 
The subject of medical education and reform in the schools 
continued, however, to be agitated by the profession in different 
sections of the country; and especially by the Medical Society of 
the State of New York. Various able reports by the “ Committee 
of Correspondence,” for several consecutive years, were made and 
discussed. At length, at the annual meeting held at Albany, in 
February, 1845, Dr. N. S. Davis, then of Binghampton, who had 
given much attention to the subject, offered the following pre- 
amble and resolutions, which were adopted with much una- 
nimity :— 
“Whereas, It is believed that a national convention would 
be conducive to the elevation of the standard of medical educa- 
tion in the United States, and, Whereas, There is no mode of 
accomplishing so desirable an object, without concert of action on 
the part of the medical societies, colleges, and institutions of all 
the States, therefore, 
“ Resolved, That the New York State Medical Society earnestly 
recommend a national medical convention of delegates from 
medical societies and colleges in the whole Union, to convene in 
the City of New York, on the first Tuesday in May, in the year 
1846, for the purpose of adopti ng some concerted action on the sub- 
ject set forth in the foregoing preamble.”f Drs. Davis, McNaugh- 
ton, and Van Buren were appointed a committee to carry out the 
proposed measure. Mainly through the untiring activity of Dr. 
N. S. Davis, now Professor of the Principles and Practice of 
Medicine in the Push Medical College, Chicago, and the co-opera- 
tion of his celleagues, a convention of members of the profession, 
representing fourteen States, was held in the city of New York, 
* History of the American Medical Association. 
f Transactions of the Medical Society of the State of New York, vol. vi., ap- 
pendix, p. 148. 15 
in the month and year named in the foregoing resolution. After 
an ineffectual and highly discourteous effort on the part of the 
delegates from the University of New York, in whose edifice the 
Convention was sitting, to dissolve it, and after the appointment of 
Committees on “Organization; on a Uniform and Elevated Stan- 
dard of Requirements for the Degree of M. D.; on Preliminary 
Education; on Ethics; on the Separation of Licensing and 
Teaching; and on a Nomenclature of Disease, adapted to the 
United Statesthe Convention adjourned to meet in Philadel- 
phia, on the first Tuesday in May, 1847. At the Convention in 
New York delegates were present from fourteen States of the 
Union; only seven State societies, however, were represented; from 
the remaining seven States delegates appeared from colleges and 
local societies* At the Convention held in Philadelphia, where 
the American Medical Association completed its organization and 
commenced its actual existence, twenty-one States and the District 
of Columbia were represented, including delegates from fifteen 
regularly organized State societies.! 
“ The great leading object, the fundamental idea which impelled 
the formation of our great national organization,” as may be 
inferred from the movements in the profession during a series of 
years previous, was the improvement of our system of medical 
education, and consequently the elevation of the whole profession. 
One of the earliest and most important results, which followed the 
establishment of a permanent National Association, was the orga- 
nization of new societies and associations, in States where none 
existed before, and the resuscitation of many old societies which 
had ceased to maintain an active existence. Between the sitting 
of the Convention in Philadelphia and the ensuing meeting of 
the Association at Baltimore, new State societies were organized 
in South Carolina, Alabama, and Pennsylvania, and the old ones 
in Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, and Wisconsin were 
greatly invigorated and strengthened. The meeting held at Bos- 
ton, in 1849, was attended by over four hundred delegates, repre- 
senting the profession and institutions of twenty-four States. At 
the Richmond meeting, in 1853, there were representatives pre- 
sent from twenty-six States, and the meeting at New York, the 
* Proceedings of the Nat. Med. Convention, p. 11 et seq. 
f Ibid., R. 24 et seq. 16 
following year, had representatives from thirty States, the District 
of Columbia, the army and navy of the United States, and the 
American Medical Society of Paris. At the meeting held in 
Boston, in 1865, six hundred and sixteen delegates and permanent 
members were in attendance. 
The Medical Society of the State of Pennsylvania was organ- 
ized in the city of Lancaster in April, 1848. Ten counties and 
twenty-one medical societies and institutions were represented 
on that occasion. That Society, as well as the Northern Medical 
Association of Philadelphia, owes, in a great measure, its origin 
to the influence exerted on the professional mind of the country 
through the movement so auspiciously begun in New York to 
organize the profession throughout the land. The latter—the 
Northern Medical—antedates both the American and the Penn- 
sylvania State societies. It was established January 7, 1847, and 
sent full delegations to the conventions that organized both the 
former. 
The Philadelphia County Medical Society, whose anniversary we 
are assembled to celebrate, was established subsequently to the 
formation of the State Society, and in accordance with the gene- 
ral plan provided in the Constitution of the State Society for the 
organization of the profession in Pennsylvania. On the 11th day 
of December, 1848, a preliminary meeting was held at the Hall 
of the College of Pharmacy, at which eleven gentlemen were 
present. It is to be regretted that no record of the names of 
those in attendance at that and at the subsequent adjourned 
meetings was kept. The meeting was temporarily organized by 
appointing Dr. Samuel Jackson, late of Northumberland, Chair- 
man, and Dr. D. Francis Condie, Secretary. The following reso- 
lution, presented by Dr. Wilson Jewell, was adopted:— 
“Resolved, That it is expedient to organize a County Medical 
Society for Philadelphia.” 
On motion of Dr. Isaac Hays, it was further 
“Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to draught a 
Constitution and By-Laws for the government of the Philadelphia 
County Medical Society, and report the same at an adjourned 
meeting of the physicians of the city and county to be held this 
day week.” 
On the 18th day of December, 1848, the physicians of Phila- 17 
delphia reassembled, and adopted a Constitution and By-Laws 
reported by the committee appointed at the former meeting, and 
resolved themselves into The Philadelphia County Medical So- 
ciety. The organization was, however, not completed until the 
first stated meeting, held on the 16th day of January, 1849, when 
the following officers were elected: President, Dr. Samuel Jackson, 
late of Northumberland; Vice-Presidents, Drs. George Pox and 
T. F. Betton; Secretary, Dr. D. Francis Condie; Corresponding 
Secretary, Dr. Henry S. Patterson ; Treasurer, Dr. M. M. Reeve; 
and Censors, Drs. Thomas Hobson, "W ilson Jewell, John F. Meigs, 
Isaac Parrish, and David Tucker. The Committee on Consti- 
tution and By-Laws, which had been authorized at the prelimi- 
nary meeting to have the same engrossed, and to “ receive the 
signatures of the constituent members of the Society, as well as 
of such other regular members of the profession as might be 
desirous of becoming members,” reported that “they had obtained 
the signatures of forty of the practitioners of the city and county 
of Philadelphia.” At this and the next meeting, eighteen others, 
some of whom had attended the previous meeting, affixed their 
names to the Constitution, making in all fifty-eight, who are re- 
garded as the original founders of the Society. Strictly speaking, 
however, in accordance with parliamentary usages, those only who 
were actually present when the meeting resolved itself into a 
society ought to be regarded as its real fouuders. Of these, how- 
ever, there is no full record. Of the former number, forty-two are 
believed to be still living, of whom only sixteen remain in active 
fellowship with the Society ; sixteen, for various reasons, have 
resigned their membership; ten have permanently removed be- 
yond the bounds of the Society; one forfeited his membership 
for non-payment of dues; and fourteen have been called to their 
long home in another sphere of existence, laden in different de- 
grees with the honors of lives, of various durations, well spent in 
administering to the wants and sufferings of humanity. Of the 
so-called founders of this Society, nine received its highest honor, 
all of whom are still living, and of whom six remain in full fel- 
lowship with it; twenty were also founders of the Medical So- 
ciety of the State of Pennsylvania, of whom sixteen survive, four 
died while members, three removed beyond its limits, seven either 
resigned or forfeited their membership, and six are still enrolled 18 
on its list of members as in full connection with the Society. 
Seven of these original members of the State Society, of whom 
two only are now living, were also among the founders of the 
Northern Medical Association of Philadelphia, an institution 
which has steadily pursued, from its earliest foundation to the 
present time, a career of unpretending activity, and has accom- 
plished much good in the section of the city in which it is located, 
especially in promoting feelings of cordiality, and fraternity, and 
in diffusing correct ethical views among the members of the pro- 
fession. 
Thus, to return from our digression, commenced the career of 
the Philadelphia County Medical Society. But its real origin must 
be ascribed, and can be traced, as has already been intimated, to 
the reflex influence which the institution of the American Medi- 
cal Association exerted on the professional mind of the country. 
Even though Dr. Nathan S. Davis, now of Chicago, named, with 
some propriety, “the father” of that organization, did not conceive 
the idea of a great national association, which he does not seem to 
claim, to him most emphatically belongs the honor of successfully 
carrying it out. And the zeal with which he originally embarked 
in the work, an almost herculean undertaking, has not in the least 
abated. This is fully shown by the regularity with which he 
continues to attend its sessions, his deep interest in its prosperity, 
as well as his earnest appeal to the profession in its behalf while 
its late presiding officer, an honor most worthily conferred, but 
only too long withheld. 
At an adjourned meeting of the Society, whose history we are 
thus imperfectly attempting to sketch, held on the 30th day of 
January 1849, delegations were elected to the American Medical 
Association, and to the State Medical Society. And this Society 
has been represented—sometimes largely and ably—every year 
since in both these bodies. Carefully written reports appear on 
the minutes from both delegations, giving a clear synopsis of 
everything interesting of a medical or professional character that 
had transpired during the sessions of either body. It is to be 
regretted that these reports, thus early inaugurated, have so fre- 
quently of late been neglected. Should not the custom by all 
means be revived, and their preparation be made obligatory on 
the respective delegations ? 19 
The Society, at its early meeting, passed resolutions favoring 
the “ enactment of a law for the registration of births, marriages, 
and deaths.” From this effort, in connection with a similar move- 
ment in the College of Physicians, resulted the general registra- 
tion act of January 12, 1852. This law, after an imperfect trial 
during a single year, did not seem, however, to be adapted to the 
wants of the whole State, and was consequently repealed in 1853. 
The present law, embracing in its provisions only the consolidated 
city of Philadelphia, was passed March 8, 1860, and was the 
joint production of the College of Physicians and the Philadel- 
phia County Medical Society—the movement having originated 
in the latter body. 
At the October meeting of the same year, Dr. Thomas Hobson 
introduced a resolution to hold special meetings “during the 
months of November, December, January, February, and March, 
for the reception of medical communications, discussions, &c.” 
The President and Secretary were constituted a committee to 
obtain the presentation of original communications at these meet- 
ings. 
The following is an enumeration of the papers which were 
read and discussed during the period embraced in Dr. Hobson’s 
resolution:— 
“ An Outline of several Important Points in reference to the 
Pathology and Treatment of Dysentery,” by the President, Dr. 
Samuel Jackson. 
“ The Use of Tonics, particularly Quinine, in the Treatment of 
Remittent Fever,” by Dr. Isaac Parrish. 
“ A paper on the Population of Philadelphia, and the Prepon- 
derance of Male over Female Births,” by Dr. G. Emerson. 
From these meetings, which, with some slight intermissions, 
have been continued during the winter months ever since, ori- 
ginated the so-called “conversational meetings,” which have con- 
tributed not a little to the edification and mutual instruction of 
the members. 
The next matter of general importance was the appointment 
of a committee on public hygiene at the meeting in January, 
1850, of which Dr. Bell was chairman. In consequence, how- 
ever, of his removal to Cincinnati, Ohio, as Professor of the 
Theory and Practice of Medicine, no report was made. 
The Society has always taken a lively interest in sanitary 20 
science and reform. It was always, and usually ably represented 
iu the Quarantine and Sanitary Conventions of the United States. 
The originator of that National Sanitary Congress, and its first 
President, is an honored member of this Society. It held its 
first session on May the 13th, 1857, in this city, at which seventy- 
three delegates from nine States were present. The delegation 
from Philadelphia—including the Board of Health, the Board of 
Trade, the College of Physicians, and this Society—consisted of 
twenty-one representatives, of whom sixteen were, at one time 
or another, members of this Society. 
In the summer of 1851, the public mind was much agitated 
by several deaths having occurred in consequence of the care- 
lessness with which physicians’ prescriptions were compounded 
by apothecaries, with a quasi belief that similar carelessness was 
exhibited on the part of physicians, by the loose, illegible, and 
hasty manner in which, frequently, their prescriptions were pre- 
pared. With a view to arrest what was believed to be a grow- 
ing evil, a committee of conference was appointed by the Phila- 
delphia County Medical Society to meet a similar committee from 
the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, for the purpose of con- 
sidering the means best adapted to prevent the occurrence of 
similar mistakes in the future. 
This joint committee, of which Dr. Condie was chosen chair- 
man, made an able and elaborate report to the bodies respectively 
from which it emanated. In that report were contained some 
excellent observations “ on the relations that should exist between 
physicians and pharmaceutists.” The report was published in 
their Journal1 by order of the College of Pharmacy, and was also 
ordered to be published by the County Society in circular form 
for distribution among the physicians and pharmaceutists of 
Philadelphia. This latter measure, however, it is to be regretted, 
was never carried out. Many excellent hints contained in that 
report emanated from the pen of Prof. Wm. Procter, and accom- 
plished a considerable amount of good. Had, as was ordered, a 
copy of the report been placed in the hands of every physician 
and apothecary of the city, perhaps many of the serious errors, 
which the community have had since to deplore, might have 
been prevented. 
1 Philadelphia Journal of Pharmacy, New Series, vol. xviii., page 27 et seq. 21 
At the stated meeting in Oct. 1S51, Dr. Isaac Parrish pre- 
sented the following resolutions, which were unanimously 
adopted:— 
“ Resolved, That the rapid increase of population, and the wide 
expansion of Philadelphia, demand that immediate measures be 
taken to secure spacious public grounds in the neighborhood of 
the densely-built portions of the city, which, while they form 
beautiful and healthful places of resort, will, at no distant day, 
prove the means of purifying and renovating the air in the midst 
of a dense and crowded population. 
“Resolved, That our experience and observation as physicians 
have convinced us that a prolific source of the infantile diseases 
and mortality of the summer months may be found in the confined 
and heated atmosphere of the courts and alleys of the city, and 
in the want of airy public grounds, easily accessible to the poorer 
classes—in the pure air of which the depressing influence of these 
causes of disease would be measurably counteracted. 
“ Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Society, much disease 
and suffering might be avoided by liberal and enlightened legis- 
lation, directed not only to the removal of obnoxious causes of 
disease, but to the prevention of those evils which invariably 
arise in all large cities, if not provided against by the wisdom 
and forecast of those intrusted with this responsible duty. 
“Resolved, That in a matter so seriously affecting the pros- 
perity of Philadelphia as that of providing ample and well-located 
public grounds, the expenditure of money, and the slight tempo- 
rary increase of taxation, should not weigh against the immense 
advantages that will accrue not only to the present inhabitants of 
the city, but to generations that may succeed them.” 
Copies of these resolutions, properly signed by the officers of 
the Society, were directed to be laid before the several corporate 
bodies who had control of the matter, with the request that they 
should give to it their early attention. What effect this action 
had, coming from the source it did, upon our “city fathers,” 
and those of the surrounding districts, cannot be said with cer- 
tainty ; but it is believed that to the movements of the Society 
just alluded to we are, to some degree, indebted for the park on 
Lemon Hill, and the squares in Kensington and Southwark, 
which minister so largely to the beauty and health of our city 22 
Other great public enterprises, in which the comfort, health, and 
lives of the population of this rapidly growing city were involved, 
have ever met, as will appear in the progress of its history, with 
the undivided support of the Society. The purity of the Schuyl- 
kill River, which is now our only source for a supply of water 
for drinking and for all culinary and other domestic purposes, 
may no doubt be secured by a similar appeal to the City Coun- 
cils, on the part of this Society, urging them to accept the liberal 
offer of some of our citizens towards the purchase by the city of 
the grounds on the western banks of the Schuylkill River, above 
Fairmount dam. 
The first President, Dr. Samuel Jackson, was annually re-elected 
for four successive years, until an amendment to the Constitu- 
tion, adopted in June, 1852, restricted the presidential term to a 
single year. 
Dr. John F. Lamb, of Frankford, was the second President, 
and annually afterwards a new President has been chosen. Some 
of the most prominent medical gentlemen of the profession in 
Philadelphia have thus, in turn, been honored, who have uni- 
formly discharged the duties of the chair faithfully, impartially, 
and acceptably. Whether this “one-term principle,” or rotation 
in office, which the renowned and lamented Chapman, at the first 
meeting of the American Medical Association, initiated by “ pre- 
cept and example,” is the best policy to be pursued by a perma- 
nent local society, has been seriously questioned. For a dele- 
gated body like the American Medical Association, or a State 
Society, where every section of the country or State is usually 
represented by the most eminent men in the profession, “mo- 
nopoly of honor or privileges ought not to be permitted to any 
portion of it.” But does the principle work so well and satis- 
factorily in the Philadelphia County Society? Do the ex-Presi- 
dents attend the meetings of the Society as punctually and regu- 
larly? Do they work as diligently and faithfully as chairmen 
and members of committees? Do they manifest as deep an inte- 
rest in the prosperity of the Society as they did previously to 
their elevation to the Presidency? Is not the very contrary the 
general rule? Is it not too often the case that the retiring Presi- 
dent becomes in fact a retiring member also? It becomes, there- 
fore, an important question, whether it would not be the wisest 
course, and add greatly to the reputation of the Society, to elect 23 
to the chairs of President and Vice-Presidents the most dis- 
tinguished of its members, having really the welfare of the 
Society at heart, and to re-elect them annually so long as they 
evince efficiency and activity in their respective offices. These 
honors would then be regarded as worth something, and might 
bring competitors into the field again who are now devoted en- 
tirely to other learned bodies. 
At the meeting of April 19, 1854, on motion of Dr. R. P. 
Thomas, a committee was appointed “to confer with the Board of 
Guardians of the Poor in relation to providing facilities for a 
course of clinical instruction in the wards of the Philadelphia 
Hospital, Blockley, open to students of medicine generally.” This 
Committee addressed a communication to the Board of Guardians, 
in which was prominently set forth “the advantages likely to re- 
sult in a medical point of view from the readmission of medical 
students into the wards of the Philadelphia Hospital, and also in 
the pecuniary returns to the county from the sale of tickets of 
admission.” This appeal, which was a remarkably strong one, 
aided by the personal efforts of the chairman of the committee 
and other members of the profession, had no doubt considerable 
influence with the Board of Guardians, and prepared the way for 
the future favorable consideration of the subject. To Dr. Thomas, 
perhaps, more than to any other single gentleman, are we, as a 
profession, indebted for the re-establishment of clinical instruction 
in the oldest and largest hospital of Philadelphia. With him the 
idea to reopen the wards of that institution, which had been 
closed since 1845, to medical students, first originated. With his 
accustomed untiring perseverance, in connection with others who 
had become enlisted in the cause, he continued his efforts until 
the beginning of September, 1854, when the Board of Guardians 
were induced to change the former policy of the institution, and 
to elect medical and surgical staffs. Consequently, in October 
ensuing, by these staffs a course of clinical lectures was com- 
menced. * 
On the 14th of June, 1854, a movement was inaugurated which 
gave rise to no inconsiderable excitement in the profession, but 
resulted in elevating the status of membership in the Society. 
At the annual session of the Medical Society of the State of 
Pennsylvania, held at Pottsville, authority was granted to the 
Philadelphia County Society, should it deem the same expedient, 24 
to change its name and to effect a complete reorganization. The 
true but concealed object was in reality to get rid by this means 
of some obnoxious members. Pending a motion to “ dissolve as 
the Philadelphia County Medical Society for the purpose of re- 
organizing under the name of the Philadelphia City Medical 
Society,” a motion to refer the whole subject to a select committee 
prevailed. This committee, after a “full investigation of the ob- 
jects, aims, and bearings” of the matter referred to it, reported 
adversely as to the measure. The committee, however, recom- 
mended the elevation of the then standard of qualification for 
membership so as “to secure the Society more fully against the ad- 
mission of unworthy members,” and enjoined on the officers and 
members generally to use all reasonable diligence in reporting 
and subjecting to punishment every case of infraction of the Con- 
stitution and Code of Ethics. These recommendations were unani- 
mously adopted. The laws of the Society and its ethics began 
from thence to be more rigidly enforced. The Constitution was 
amended so as to make membership more difficult, requiring fuller 
knowledge and higher qualifications on the part of the candidate. 
The professional conduct of its members was also more closely 
scrutinized ; those found guilty of violating or disregarding the 
conventional usages of the profession, or of oonduct derogatory to 
its character or honor, were summarily dealt with. 
About that period various projects intimately connected with 
the advancement of the members of the Society in knowledge, 
and their elevation in character—prominent objects in its forma- 
tion—occupied its attention. The expediency of publishing its 
transactions in a permanent form was earnestly discussed, and 
urged by prominent members. The establishment also of a 
Library, Reading Room, and Pathological Cabinet was seriously 
contemplated. Upon the favorable report of a select committee, 
to whom the consideration of the “ expediency and feasibility” 
of these projects had been referred, approving resolutions were 
adopted. A Library Committee was appointed, and the initiative 
taken to “place within the reach of the members the leading 
medical periodicals of America and Europe,” and “such standard 
medical works” as might “be selected by the Committee on 
Library.” This project was, however, temporarily abandoned, 
and has never been resumed. 
On January 17th, 1855, at the stated meeting, Drs. Joseph 25 
R. Bryan and Thomas Bond, the latter having removed from the 
county, resigned their membership in the Society. These were 
the first resignations that occurred. Several years later, however, 
a large number of members, including some of the most active 
and distinguished, followed the example thus set them. 
This so called “exodus of talent, learning, skill, and respect- 
ability,” was and continues to be a source of as much regret to 
many of their remaining colleagues as it would be of gratification 
to welcome their return to the Society. 
The first death of a member, of which there is any record, was 
that of Prof. Wm. R. Grant, M. D. It was announced at the 
meeting of April 20, 1852. Since then over fifty others,* while 
in full fellowship with the Society, have gone to 
“ That undiscovered country, from whose bourn 
No traveller returns.” 
Of most of these brief biographical notices were prepared by 
direction of the Society, and published in the different numbers 
of the Transactions of the Medical Society of the State of Penn- 
sylvania. 
When, in 1857, scientific bodies, with the national and State 
* At a conversational meeting held January 9, 1856, a report was presented 
by the retiring Recording Secretary, Dr. R. P. Thomas, in which occurs the fol- 
lowing language : “ Since that period (the organization of the Society, when the 
names of fifty-eight physicians were enrolled as original members), 277 practi- 
tioners of medicine have been duly elected members, of whom eight, recently 
elected, have not yet signed the Constitution, leaving a total membership of 277. 
But strange to say, for various reasons, in the short period of seven years one- 
fourth of the whole number is no longer included in fellowship with us.” 
“ Thus, those, who felt so little interest in the objects of the Society, and 
their advancement, as to have forfeited the rights of membership, num- 
ber 29 
Forfeited membership for non-payment of dues ... 1 
Expelled .......... 1 
Resigned .......... 5 
Removed permanently from the county .... 14 
Deceased .......... 26 
76 
Leaving the present number of members 201 
And of members elect 8 
209” 26 
governments, were manifesting their sorrow for the loss, which 
science and humanity had sustained in the death of the celebrated 
Arctic explorer, Dr. Elisha Kent Kane, a Philadelphian by birth, 
education, and sympathy, the Philadelphia County Medical 
Society united in expressing its grief at his untimely end, and 
passed a series of resolutions highly complimentary to the de- 
parted, and consolatory to his bereaved parents and family. “ In 
the brilliant achievements accomplished by Dr. Kane, the Society 
recognized the great capabilities conferred by a well-grounded 
medical education, when directed by talent, and urged by zeal 
and generous impulses, to extend the bounds of knowledge and 
accomplish the great objects of philanthropy.” 
The unparalleled indignity done the profession in 1857, by the 
Board of Guardians of the Poor, in elevating to the responsible 
position of Physician in-Chief of the Philadelphia Hospital, a 
person who had rendered himself obnoxious by his disregard of 
its ethics and conventional usages, must remain fresh in the 
memory of many of those who surround me. It called forth the 
righteous indignation of the profession in almost every section of 
the country. The Philadelphia County Society promptly con- 
vened and resented the insult thus offered to the profession. It 
nobly sustained the action of the Resident Physicians, and 
approved the course of the consulting staffs, all of whom resigned 
their respective positions, and declined to serve under, or in con- 
nection with, an individual who they believed had forfeited all 
claim to professional fellowship by becoming a vendor of secret 
nostrums; one who was accused also of other unprofessional con- 
duct, and had for these acts been expelled from the American 
Medical Association. Our Society subjected the delinquent to 
discipline, and inflicted upon him all the punishment which was 
within its power. It likewise exacted and obtained reluctant 
apologies from such—including gentlemen in high places in the 
profession—as had by recommendation, verbal or written, been 
in the least instrumental in elevating the party referred to to the 
post which it was considered that he disgraced. Fifty-six mem- 
bers, with but short notice, assembled and participated in the above 
proceedings. These facts are here introduced, and similar ones 
are interspersed elsewhere, to show the high ethical tone, which, 
in its most palmy days, characterized the Society. 27 
In 1857 the Society had 215 active members enrolled on its 
list. On one occasion, to which more particular reference may 
be made hereafter, during high professional excitement, 104 votes 
were polled at an election for officers and delegates. In 1866 
there were only 145 members enrolled, and 36 was the highest 
number present at any meeting during the year. In 1865 the 
highest number present was 34, when it had been announced that 
both an adjourned stated and a conversational meeting would be 
held on the same evening, in consequence of not having had an 
elective quorum at the previous regular meeting. The largest 
number present in 1864 was 33. With this gradual numerical 
declension in membership, and the decrease in the attendance 
upon the meetings of the Society, has there not also been a cor- 
responding decline in that high-toned ethical bearing which 
characterized similar associations in the days of Rush and Phy- 
sick, and even at a later period? 
Do not the indifference and carelessness evinced in the prepa- 
ration of many of the scientific papers read before the Society, 
the procrastination of the reports directed to be made, the care- 
less, hasty, and incomplete manner in which other duties are per- 
formed—do not, we ask, all these combine to show that there is 
a very perceptible and deplorable departure from former usage? 
And what effect has all this on the dignity, efficiency, and ad- 
vancement in knowledge of the Society? 
As early as 1857—nine years ago—it was already felt that the 
important objects contemplated in the formation of the Society 
had failed to be realized to any great extent, and a committee 
was appointed to report “a plan of operations by which the con- 
fidence and attendance of its entire membership might be secured, 
and its facilities augmented, whereby the important and desirable 
intentions of its founders should be more successfully carried 
out.” In the report of that Committee the belief is expressed that 
while “ there exists some cause of complaint as to the want of affilia- 
tion among the members of the Society, and a deficient interest in 
all that relates to its healthful condition as an association for medi- 
cal improvements, they, nevertheless, are convinced that much 
good to the profession has already resulted from its existence, 
and that it possesses in its present membership an amount of 
learning, talent, and energy sufficient to render it fully competent 28 
to the task of elevating its dignity and promoting its scientific 
character, as the representative of the great body of the profession 
in our midst, to a still greater height, provided these elements 
are properly cared for and directed.” After alluding to the dis- 
satisfaction which is found “in every association with its work- 
ings,” the “ petty jealousies” which “seldom fail to arise in the 
minds of those who are alike aspirants and even competitors for 
distinction,” and the “decline in the active co-operation of many 
valuable members in the promotion of the general interests of the 
Society” consequent upon “ favoritism and the exclusiveness of 
cliques,” the Committee, without attributing it to “either of the 
evils indicated,” positively affirm “that the Society has not 
received that zealous co-operation on the part of a large class of 
its members that was anticipated.” Among other suggestions 
made, with a view to remove the evils complained of, and to 
“extend its influence, enrich its archives, and earn for it a broad 
distinction among kindred institutions,” the Committee proposed 
that the Society should establish a “ series of lectures upon sub- 
jects not incorporated in the course of instruction in our medical 
schools, or if noticed, treated only in a superficial manner.” This 
praiseworthy project, however, like that of the library and read- 
ing room, failed in consequence of the non-procurement of a 
sufficient fund to meet the necessary expenses. The “ universal 
distress, and almost general ruin” in the fall of 1857, “appalled 
the minds of our countrymen, and seemed to forbid the seri- 
ous consideration of any undertaking that required the outlay 
of money.” “ How,” say the Committee to whom was referred 
the subject, in their very elaborate report, “shall plans formed 
about six months since, when the community was believed to be 
in a state of high prosperity, be executed at a moment of unex- 
ampled ruin and distress?” 
About this period—in the beginning of the year 1858—there 
again arose undue excitement in the Society. An election, held 
in January of that year, when 72 members were present, was, at 
an adjourned meeting, when 84 members were present, set aside 
as irregular, and a new election ordered to be held. The Society 
adjourned for the purpose to the 6th of February, when 104 
members were present and voted. To these proceedings a solemn 
protest was filed, and entered on the minutes; but still the elec- 29 
tion went on. The result was not materially different from the 
former—nearly all the same officers and delegates being elected 
that had been returned before. The occasion of the apparent 
double dissatisfaction was the appointment of the committees of 
nomination through the supposed influence of a clique—to rebuke 
which act there seemed to have been a concerted action on 
the part of a large number of members who were not in league 
with it. Without wishing to revive reminiscences, which ought 
perhaps to be buried in oblivion, and which may awaken sincere 
regrets in the bosoms of many individuals, who, at that time, felt, 
thought, and acted apparently in opposition to each other, your 
speaker embraces this opportunity of emphatically disclaiming, 
in this public way, any knowledge of, although he was accused 
of having been privy to, the scheme of erasing certain names 
from, and inserting others on, the ticket. When, however, the 
effort was made to declare the election void, for reasons which 
were by many regarded as insufficient and untenable, he opposed 
by his vote and influence, and favored and labored for the return, 
with a few exceptions, of the officers and delegates who had, 
undoubtedly, been legally elected before, and in accordance with 
former custom and usage. But from that period the interest in 
the Society began to wane, the meetings were less fully and 
regularly attended, the membership gradually fell off, and a 
general declension in the interest of the affairs of the Society 
ensued. 
The excitement in the profession, thus occasioned, had scarcely 
time to subside before it was followed by a still greater convul- 
sion, growing out of the alleged unprofessional conduct of one of 
its members. Cases of discipline became frequent, and every 
known infraction of the laws of the Society and ethics of the 
profession was sure to be visited with speedy punishment. 
About this period a communication was received from a mem- 
ber of Select Council, T. Cuyler, Esq., soliciting the views of the 
profession, in its associated capacity, “upon interments within the 
densely built portions of the city.” Dr. John Bell was appointed 
chairman of a committee “to prepare and submit to Councils the 
sentiments of this Society, which were adverse to intra-mural 
interments, and urging the vital importance of preventing by 
law or ordinance the future interments of the dead in the densely 30 
built portions of this city.” The Committee, at a subsequent 
meeting, submitted a report, written by the chairman. Owing to 
the imperfect manner in which the minutes of the Society were 
kept at that period, no extracts from it can be furnished. Men- 
tion is here made of this subject of intra-mural interments to 
show the high estimation in which the sentiments of the Society 
were beginning to be held. An expression on any subject per- 
taining to the public health was exerting its proper influence on 
the city government, as well as upon public opinion generally. 
The next question, upon which the profession was somewhat 
divided, although the Society itself was a unit, was the division 
of representation in the State Society between several societies 
in Philadelphia County. A powerful remonstrance was adopted 
by the Society, and presented to the State Society, against alter- 
ing the Constitution of the latter so as to allow of delegates 
being received from other bodies in Philadelphia than from 
the Philadelphia County Society. This remonstrance prevailed 
with the State Society. The Constitution remained unaltered, 
and the petition of the gentlemen composing a body which had 
been regarded as defunct for years was denied. This led to other 
withdrawals from membership. 
Evidences of the high standard of ethics which the Society 
recognized and sustained occurred continually. Several applica- 
tions for restoration to membership by a gentleman who had 
been expelled for infractions of the Constitution, are spread on 
the minutes. Complete and unconditional apologies accompanied 
these, as well as candid acknowledgments that the character of 
the applicant and his standing both in the community and the 
profession, as also that his business had become seriously affected 
on account of his anomalous position. 
The next matter of paramount importance to the profession, 
“ whether regarded in an ethical or pecuniary point of view,” 
was the adoption of a uniform standard of charges for the whole 
county, and thus supplying a want which had been long felt. 
Previously to the year 1864 the Society had never been able to 
agree upon a Fee Bill. That of the College of Physicians was 
generally recognized, and had been, with slight modifications, 
adopted, years before, by the Northern Medical Association. It 
had always been contended, however, that while the fee bill of the 31 
College was not adapted to the rural or suburban districts, yet 
two fee-bills, ‘'emanating from independent sources, and differing 
in the specifications of charges, would nullify each other, and 
produce endless confusion.” Happily, at the period referred to, 
the three bodies, embracing nearly every practitioner of respecta- 
bility in the consolidated city, adopted the same scale of charges, 
the College of Physicians having modified their old bill in accord- 
ance with the necessities of the times. In this bill, as the Com- 
mittee that had the subject under consideration very properly 
observed, “the reserved right still remains with every-member 
of the Society, as it does with every Fellow of the College, while 
conforming as closely as possible to the recognized standard, to 
take into consideration the pecuniary ability of his patient, and, 
where the means of the latter are limited, to make such deduc- 
tions from the original fees charged as to him may seem proper.” 
On December 14, 1864, “in view of the enormity of the offence 
of criminal abortion, and its common and increasing practice in 
this and every other community,” “a committee was appointed 
to report what action, if any, should be adopted to bring about 
such a state of morals as will tend to lessen the crime, and thus 
prevent the practice of a sin of every day’s occurrence.” This 
Committee has not yet finally reported. On several occasions 
the subject was warmly debated, and individual members of the 
Committee presented their views unreservedly. Their report on 
so vitally important a subject is anxiously awaited. It is hoped, 
too, that something may be suggested that will arrest this in- 
creasing evil, and thoroughly enlighten the public in regard to 
the physical dangers and the immorality, or irreligious nature, if 
you prefer, of the abominable practice. 
During the late rebellion—the most wicked and causeless the 
world ever knew—the patriotism of the Society became early 
aroused. At the outbreak of the war, many of its members 
promptly tendered their services to their country in a pro- 
fessional capacity, and others even as private soldiers. Some of 
these sealed their devotion to their country’s cause with their 
blood, others eminently distinguished themselves in the surgical 
staffs of the navy and army, while all performed their duties in 
their several positions, whether in the hospitals or on the field 
of battle, heroically, faithfully, and with, we trust, humanity. 32 
And who does not remember, with honest pride, the patriotic 
offer to the government, in the event of an emergency, of a large 
portion of its membership as volunteer surgeons, who, from in- 
firmity of age and on account of other justifiable reasons, could 
not join the Union army in the tented field? 
Upon the reception of the melancholy intelligence of the das- 
tardly and traitorous assassination of the beloved chief magistrate 
of the nation, Abraham Lincoln, at an hour when the nation was 
rejoicing over successive victories, the prospects of an early peace, 
and a glorious future, the Society, in connection with govern- 
mental, municipal, and other kindred bodies, expressed its pro- 
found abhorrence of a deed so fiendish as to be without a parallel 
in the history of our country, and without a name anywhere. 
We have thus minutely, yet imperfectly, but, we trust, impar- 
tially, delineated the history of this Society from its origin to the 
present time. Having, without favor or malice, given a retrospect 
of some of the more discouraging features in its history during 
the past eighteen years of its existence, let us now turn and glance 
for a moment at the brighter side of the picture. 
It is true there may not have been accomplished all that could 
have been desired, in a strictly literary and scientific point of 
view; investigations may not have been pursued that added 
many new facts to science; original observations may have been 
but few. Its more appropriate sphere has been the practical—the 
application of the discoveries of other learned bodies to the cure of 
disease and the alleviation of human suffering. In this particular, 
during the eighteen years of its existence and activity, much has 
been done. Fruits of long years of extensive experience have 
been matured. Free and frequent interchange of sentiments 
between its members, on almost every topic relating to the prac- 
tice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery, have taken place. Much 
valuable knowledge on many obscure points in practice has been 
elicited, and many facts were communicated which would have 
remained hidden in the breast of some of our most experienced 
and successful practitioners. The dissertations, which have ave- 
raged during the whole period of the Society’s career from seven 
to eight per annum, were mostly papers of a high order, and 
compare favorably, as literary efforts, in thought, in substance, 
composition, and instructiveness, with the productions of other 33 
similar institutions. It is a source of regret that most of these 
exist only in manuscript, some of which, even, especially the 
earlier papers, may be entirely lost. If they could all be collected, 
they would constitute an exceedingly valuable volume.* 
* The subjoined is a list of the papers referred to:— 
1851. —Nov. 11. A paper was read on Scarlet Fever, by Wm. Curran, M.D. 
1852. —Jan. 13. Dr. Parrish read a paper on the Natural Laws of Disease, 
or Medicine not a System. 
Feb. 10. A communication on the organization of the American Medi- 
cal Association, by Dr. S. Jackson, 1500 copies of which were or- 
dered to be published. 
March 9. Discussion on Anaesthetics. 
April 13. Discussion on Anaesthetics continued. 
1853. —March 9. The subject of Acute Rheumatism, its Pathology and Treat- 
ment, was introduced by Dr. Turnbull. 
April 13. The subject of Puerperal Fever was discussed. 
Oct. 12. The recent prevalence of Yellow Fever in the neighborhood 
of South Street wharf was discussed. 
Nov. 9. The use of Calomel as a Remedy in the Diseases of Children, 
was discussed. 
Dec. 14. A paper on the Use and Abuse of the Lancet, was read by 
Dr. Remington. 
1854. —Jan. 11. A paper on Anaesthetics in Surgery, was read by Dr. Betton. 
Feb. 8. Dr. Condie read a paper on the Pathology of Typhoid Fever. 
March 8. A paper on Uterine Hemorrhage, was read by Dr. Jewell. 
Oct. 11. Dr. Hollingsworth read a paper on the Employment of 
Bloodletting in the Treatment of Pneumonia. 
1855. —Jan. 10. Dr. Lewis P. Gebhard read a paper on the Treatment of 
Puerperal Fever. 
Feb. 14. An interesting paper on Hooping Cough was read by Dr. 
Laurence Turnbull. 
March 14. A valuable paper on Cholera was presented and read by 
Dr. Henry Hartshorne. 
Oct. 10.—Iodide of Potassium was discussed. 
Nov. 14. Dr. Remington read a valuable introductory essay on Inhala- 
tion in Diseases of the Respiratory Organs. 
Dec. 12. The Use and Abuse of the Forceps; an introductory essay 
was read by Dr. Wm. Harris. 
1856. —Jan. 9. Dr. Wm. Harris read a supplementary paper to the essay on 
the Use and Abuse of the Forceps, presented at the last meeting. 
Jan. 9. The Use of Alcohol in Disease; an able introductory paper, 
favorable to its employment, was read by Dr. H. Hartshorne. 
Oct. 8. Dr. D. Francis Condie read an interesting paper on the Patho- 
logy and Treatment of Yellow Fever. 34 
If its Transactions cannot hereafter be published in perma- 
nent form, ought not a copy of every paper prepared for and read 
before the Society, be preserved in its archives? The annual ad- 
dresses of the several presiding officers, which have been mostly 
published in pamphlet form, would form another interesting 
volume. In this connection, the volume of debates prepared by 
the Secretary with so much care, deserves, also, mention. 
1856. —Nov. 12. The Hygienic Treatment of Disease, was introduced by Dr. 
Jno. Bell by some interesting remarks. 
Dec. 10. Dr. James M. Corse read an introductory paper on Certain 
Forms of Paralysis which are curable. 
1857. —Jan. 14. Dr. S. Littell read a paper upon FJectricity as a Cause of 
Disease. 
March 11. Dr. A. Nebinger read a paper on the Nature and Treat- 
ment of Smallpox. 
Oct. 14. The Treatment of Dysentery was announced as the subject 
for discussion. Dr. Condie delivered an instructive lecture on it. 
Nov. 11. The Treatment of Scarlatina was announced as the subject 
for discussion. Dr. Nebinger introduced the subject with some 
highly interesting remarks. 
Dec. 9. The discussion on Croup was opened in an able lecture by 
Dr. H. Hartshorne. 
1858. —Jan. 13. Dr. R. K. Smith read a paper on Rheumatism. 
Feb. 15. Dr. Turnbull reported a case of large Cephalaematoma. 
March 10. Dr. Thomas read an essay on the subject of anaesthetics. 
Sept. 8. Placenta Praevia. Dr. W. L. Atlee read Propositions in the 
Treatment of Placenta Praevia. 
Oct. 13. Dr. J. J. Levick read a paper on Sunstroke. 
Nov. 10. Infantile Convulsions were discussed. 
Dec. 8. Dr. Remington read a paper on the Pathology and Treatment 
of Neuralgia. 
1859. —Jan. 12. Delirium Tremens was the subject of discussion. 
March 9. The Evils of Ardent Spirits and Tobacco, considered in 
their Moral, Social, and Physical Influences. Introductory Re- 
marks by Dr. Condie. 
Sept. 12. Dr. Jewell read an essay on the question, Has Yellow Fever 
ever originated in the latitude of Philadelphia ? 
Oct. 12. Dr. J. J. Woodward read a paper on Tuberculosis. 
Nov. 9. Dr. W. L. Atlee read an essay on the Diagnosis of Ovarian 
Tumors. 
Dec. Dr. R. P. Thomas read an essay on the subject of Hernia. 
1860. —Jan. 11. Dr. Condie read an essay on the subject of Bloodletting. 
Feb. 8. Dr. Atlee read a paper on the Differential Diagnosis of Ova- 
rian Tumors. 
Feb. 15. The discussion on Bloodletting was continued. 35 
During the year which has just terminated, while I had the 
honor and the pleasure of presiding over its deliberations, the 
subjects which claimed the scientific attention of the Society 
were not less important and interesting than those of preceding 
years. The following were the principal ones, some of which 
elicited spirited discussion : “ Puerperal Fever“ Diseases of the 
Membrana Tympanithe “ Laryngoscope “ Cholera“ The 
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the American 
Medical Association “The Therapeutic Application of Muriate 
of Ammonia;” and “ Dystochia.” 
1860. —March 14. Dr. H. Hartshorne read a paper on Diphtheria. 
March 28. The discussion on Diphtheria was continued. 
Sept. 12. Dr. Corse read a paper on Abortion, its Causes, Dangers, 
and Treatment. 
Oct. 10. Dr. Hamilton read a paper on Opium as a Therapeutic 
Agent. 
Nov. 14. Dr. S. D. Gross read a paper on the Tendency of the Present 
Day in regard to the Doctrine of Debility, and the Treatment of Dis- 
ease by Stimulants. 
Dec. 12. Dr. Atlee read a paper in continuance of the subject of the 
Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Tumors. 
1861. —Jan. 9. Dr. Worthington read a paper on Puerperal Insanity. 
Feb. 13. Dr. Levick made some remarks on Chorea, the subject for 
discussion. 
Mareh 13. Dr. Corse read a paper on the Microscope in its Applica- 
tion to Pathology and Diagnosis. ' 
Sept. 11. Stimulants in Acute Diseases, opened by Dr. Hartshorne. 
Oct. 9. Dr. Nebinger read a paper on Puerperal Convulsions. 
Nov. 13. Variola, its Modifications and Treatment, by Dr. Bell. 
Dec. 11. Dr. Sargent read a paper upon Infantile Remittent Fever. 
1862. —Jan. 8. Dr. Atkinson read a paper on Veratrum Viride. 
Feb. 12. Dr. D. F. Condie read a paper on Nature and Art in the 
Cure of Disease. 
March 2. Fever in its Relation to Inflammation, a paper by Dr. W. 
Darrach. 
Nov. 12. Dr. StillS read a paper on Asthma. 
Dec. 18. Dr. Hartshorne introduced the subject of Puerperal Fever. 
1863. —Jan. 14. Dr. Turnbull read a paper on Nervous Deafness. 
March 11. Dr. J. Cheston Morris read a paper on Scarlatina. 
Sept. 9. Dr. Corse read a valuable paper on Urinary Deposits. 
Oct. 14. Dr. J. J. Levick read a valuable paper on Miasmatic Typhoid 
Fever. 
Dec. 9. Dr. Wittig read a paper on Elimination in the Treatment of 
Disease. 36 
The various sanitary and necrological reports to the State So- 
ciety, which emanated from the Philadelphia County Medical 
Society, also deserve favorable mention. They form part of the 
medical literature of the times. Some of them were prepared 
with great care. Embracing, as they do, the mortuary statistics 
for the years for which they were respectively written, they will 
be invaluable to the future statistician and biographer. 
But we claim still more for the Society in a literary and scien- 
tific point of view. It has been honored on four different occa- 
sions by the State Society, in selecting from her delegates the 
president of that body. Custom and subsequent enactment de- 
volved upon these functionaries the duty of delivering addresses 
at the close of their respective terms of office. The contributions 
thus made to the literature of the profession, may be justly 
claimed as its own. 
A distinguished member of the Society, some years since, was 
elected President, and another, at a subsequent time, first Vice- 
President of the American Medical Association. In the course 
of events, it became the duty of both to deliver addresses before 
that body. Other members were appointed chairmen of commit- 
tees, who presented able and valuable reports on various import- 
ant subjects. If time permitted, it would be an agreeable task 
to pursue this train of thought further, and endeavor to point out 
the relation which some of these masterly productions sustain to 
the Society whose members furnished them. 
1864. —Jan. 13. Dr. Hamilton read a paper on Cholera Infantum. 
March 9. Dr. Atkinson introduced the subject of Interference in 
Natural Labor. 
Sept. 14. Dr. Burns read a paper on Spotted Fever. 
Oct. 12. Dr. Turnbull read a paper on Foreign Bodies in the Ear. 
Nov. 9. Dr. W. Darrach introduced Local Diseases that demand Con- 
stitutional Treatment. 
Dec. 11. Dr. Shapleigh read a paper on Criminal Abortion. 
1865. —Feb. 8. Prof. Rogers gave an interesting lecture on Urinary Deposits. 
Sept. 13. Dr. Condie read a paper on Typhoid Fever. 
Oct. 11. Dr. Nebinger read a paper on Cholera. 
Oct. 25. Dr. Gebhard read a paper on the Treatment of Cholera. 
Nov. 8. Dr. J. Cheston Morris read a paper on Uterine Displacements. 
Dec. 13. Dr. Joseph Leidv gave a very interesting lecture upon 
Human Entozoa. 37 
In conclusion, my fellow-members, I congratulate the Society 
upon the harmony, the cordiality, and good fellowship which 
characterized all its proceedings during the past year. Thanking 
you again, and heartily, for the honor which your partiality be- 
stowed upon me, and for the patience with which you have borne 
with me on the present occasion, I now most cheerfully transfer 
the chair, with all its duties and responsibilities, to him whom you 
have chosen to be my successor. I beg to bespeak for him the 
same courtesy and kind forbearance which you have extended to 
myself. I also congratulate you, Mr. President elect, upon your 
newly-acquired honors, which become you so well. Your known 
antecedents in this Society, as a zealous and faithful worker in 
every position hitherto intrusted to you, are the best possible 
guarantee that the objects of the Society will be sedulously cared 
for and greatly promoted during your presidency.